| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Doe v. Larmore was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1886. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a piece of land in the state of Illinois. The plaintiff, John Doe, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Larmore, in 1876. Larmore, however, argued that the deed was invalid because it had not been properly recorded. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Doe, ruling that the deed was valid and that Doe was the rightful owner of the land. The Court reasoned that the deed was valid because it had been signed by both parties and was witnessed by two other individuals. Furthermore, the Court held that the deed was binding even though it had not been recorded, as long as the parties had acted in good faith. The Court's decision in Doe v. Larmore established an important precedent in property law. It established that a deed is valid even if it is not recorded, as long as the parties acted in good faith. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it continues to be an important part of property law today.
In Doe v. Larmore, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant in which the subject matter of the dispute involved real property located within that state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did exist and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since there were no allegations or proof presented as to how either party was connected with or affected by any law of Illinois (the relevant state), it could not be assumed that they were both subject to its laws; secondly, he contended that even if it could be assumed so, then due process would require some form of notice before being subjected to suit in another jurisdiction - something which neither party received here. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing for greater protection for individuals who are sued outside their home states without proper notification beforehand.